Totally agree with this review with one exception: I really wish people would stop saying that "[r]ecycling, we now know, is a farce" and other similar nonsense. What you mean is that PLASTIC recycling is a farce, and always has been. Some of us have known that for 40 years, so nothing new about it. But recycling paper, glass, and metal is quite real. While it doesn't solve the problem of humans constantly committing ecocide by consuming needless containers and trees, it does substantially reduce the amount of life that humans kill and the amount of ecosystems and habitats destroyed. Again, I totally agree that humans must greatly lower their population and consumption and return to living naturally, but in our current society, recycling is far better than not recycling.
Glass recycling is real, but energy intensive and complex (although not compared to recycling metal!) and so doesn't actually get done much. Where I live, it's too expensive, so the glass gets shipped off for downcycling into aggregates.
Metal recycling depends heavily on the metal and what it is in (i.e. what are other components, the size, whether the technology is there, etc.). So for aluminum recycling for instance, an aluminum can is easy because it's not mixed with anything except a bit of plastic, but still energy intensive (it's shredded and then melted in a furnace at high heat).
Copper is similar, for copper that is like copper wire, and not copper say, in a battery.
But when you look at how metals in a battery are recycled (like a Li-ion battery) then things get a LOT more difficult and toxic and energy intensive. So, for Li-ion batteries, the batteries are shredded in water (to alleviate the tendency for them to explode) -- thus toxifying the water! -- and the plastic is floated off. The rest goes through several processes, heating, and bathing in various toxic chemicals, depending on which metals are the priority to extract (you can't really get them all but you can prioritize which ones you want and use a different process depending on that). After all that you're left with toxic sludge that has to be dumped somewhere.
Some metals like copper and steel and aluminum have a high recovery rate (80-95%). Most metals have a MUCH lower recovery rate. At a recovery rate of 90% you're down to less than 10% of the original material after 22 cycles. For most you lost most of the material after just 1 or 2 cycles.
So yeah. Recycling plastic is a farce, but recycling is always energy intensive and usually toxic.
Wow, this is a great piece and devastating to know the authors conclusions. It’s as if the imagination was replaced with delusional magical thinking. Like they’re willing to do the research and expose the darkness, but then really really want to be popular by reinforcing mediocre responses.
another thing i noticed about Kara's book is that it got a lot of mainstream press exposure, but then i don't think i saw a single followup to learn if anything has changed, either in the Congo or with people's usage of cell-phones.
We know what we are doing, but we continue to do it anyway because no one knows how to do it differently. And even if we do know how to do it differently, we know if *we* do, others won't, so what's the point? (Some of us do what we can anyway, so we can live with ourselves, but most don't.)
At the country level, the first mover disadvantage will keep us in the arms race of extraction and pollution, unless the entire world can come together on these issues and collectively agree to change. I, personally and sadly, don't see that happening.
Thanks for the response and about the plastics book. I loosely address some of what you mention in my recent essay...how economy, extraction, war, environment are connected, so i hope you can give it a read. The "eco-environ enclosed loop", a phrase i came up with from the etymology of the words, is akin to the box to which people say, think outside the box.
and yeah, sad the lack of change, which makes the books seem like fastfood. For me the "do it differently" is encouraged by remembering that sometimes one person starting/doing something can have a ripple effect, albeit indirectly. When i used to bring my reusable bag to a big chain supermarket, one day the lady at checkout said something like, 'It's mister Greenpeace'...years later such bags are way more prevalent. Perhaps it was just a matter of time rather than a cause-effect, but point is, when one does what one does, it can help.
Elisabeth, Am well aware that the way humanity is mistreating Mother Earth is the biggest issue and that drastic changes are needed. The only book i can speak directly to is Cobalt Red and although i agree it's lacking in solutions, i don't think Kara deserves extreme finger-pointing as i found the book highly worthy and informative about a topic that many are oblivious too so kudos to Kara for bravely doing the research, something you do acknowledge, and so i consider the book at the least as a much-needed conversation starter. No roads, no cell-phones, no plastics, i mean can you imagine the worldwide chaos? Of course am aware of the horrors associated with all of those products and that during Covid rivers and skies cleared up, yet what "real change" do you propose b/c without roads and plastics, there are ~8 billion people to answer to, and yes am aware that humans are only one species. You state "Anything else is unacceptable." What then do you propose? And why is there no room for nuance? And yes the destruction happening is a call for drastic changes yet i still think there is room for nuance and some sort of transitional phases from the consumer-laden lifestyles. I personally put much attention to being content with the simplest of lifestyles yet in suburbia, for one, my current diet depends on foods delivered by roads.
Mankh, thank you for your comment. Yes I agree, I'm glad that Kara did the research; it's important that people know the truth. As I say about all the books, they are all important and good reads despite their common flaw.
Max and I wrote a Solutions piece for Protect Thacker Pass with proposals for what to do, so I'll point you there instead of repeating here: https://www.protectthackerpass.org/solutions/
"No roads, no cell-phones, no plastics, i mean can you imagine the worldwide chaos?"
Yes, I can. But with roads (and cars), with cell-phones, and with plastics (and all the other things that make the modern world run), human society will soon collapse and take many of the other species on Earth with us as we are already doing.
To take just one of the ways we're destroying Earth (from one of these books): we have poisoned the entire planet with micro- and nano-plastics, now found everywhere we look, including brains, placentas, fetuses, the Arctic, the Antarctic, mountaintops, the deepest parts of the ocean, etc. We are literally poisoning ourselves and every living being and ecosystem on the planet.
So yeah, there will be worldwide chaos. But what is the alternative? To continue poisoning the planet until EVERYTHING dies?? Chaos for ONE species out of 10 million is a small price to pay to stop this insanity.
As Max and I lay out in our Solutions, yes of course there will need to be an adjustment period. But if we don't face the reality -- that we need to eliminate these things that are killing life on Earth -- then when collapse of human society and population does come -- and it will come, because we are already in catastrophic ecological overshoot, and all species in overshoot eventually collapse -- there will be very little life left, and no unpolluted ecosystems to sustain what little is left.
I, personally, would happily take the chaos in order to lessen that blow, even just a little.
-- Elisabeth, Thanks for response and link which i may have looked at previously but just glanced again. I communicate with Max and respect his work very much. I meant more so your solutions for ~8 billion people living with virtually nothing, which is what it seems you propose. While i idealistically agree with much of the ways to improve, i find the books article with the gist of what you present, i find it too either/or, too off-putting and extreme; it's presented, as i mentioned, with no nuance and as if you expect people to immediately forage totally off the grid when people can barely go 5 minutes without a cellphone, am not defending that behavior just saying that would be part of the chaos, as proven by the amount of mental-emotional issues and traumas from lockdown time when many people actually had access to the things you want to eliminate. I also think the either/or doesn't account for weather patterns which are controlled in part by spiritual dimensions, but that's another discussion. I just mean that the starkness you present gives no nuance, for example, while some of the solutions are admirable, there would be tools and plastics and vehicles needed to clean up military bases.
That's why Max and I suggest a gradual rationing plan and population plan, so allow time for people to adjust and population to decrease.
Obviously none of what we propose will happen. But there are so few people even willing to contemplate degrowth, much less a radical plan to live in balance with nature again. I think it's worth putting more radical ideas out there.
After collapse happens -- either because we put a radical plan into place, or because we don't -- we will be in MUCH worse shape than if we'd actually contemplated what it will take to live with dramatically reduced materials and energy, and in a catastrophically polluted environment, with hardly any wildlife left. I'm simply proposing that we consider now (rather than waiting until collapse is upon us) what will eventually be our reality (because the carrying capacity of Earth has been so reduced by overshoot).
seems to me that and you and i agree on a lot of essences, yet it's the process about how change happens that makes for a trickier conversation and i don't profess to have big answers. I have my answers and offer many suggestions via my writings, etc. yet i find the overall topic so huge that it's tricky to be precise with answers.
Elisabeth, i read thru most of the link and in essence i agree and do feel local is a wave of the now and future, and the goals are admirable, it's that i wonder about how all this currently plays out in real time and i don't expect you to have all the answers. What am trying to get at it is that i think there's some sort of weaning/relearning process and that's some of what i mean by the either/or sounding off-putting. I also think en masse b/c humans haven't listened to the warnings for decades, we're in a phase where the true teachers are Nature e.g. storms that leave people with virtually or no possessions and Spirit-beings that do what they do to guide people. So that's where much of my attention and action is at, staying in tune with the Nature rhythms and messages, and those of the Spirit-beings.
Yes I agree it's off-putting to some (not all). I think it takes ALL of us doing what we think is right to fight for nature. Some will resonate with the unvarnished truth. Others will need to be gently led. I'm not a gently lead kind of person; many many others are. I prefer to look at reality, now, in its entirety. Others have different styles. And again, we need it all.
And honestly, none of it really matters much. We are well into the sixth mass extinction, and the web of life is fraying while I write this.
We're all in this together. Even if one or a few countries decided to seriously take on degrowth, even gently, other countries would not. The countries that do would "leave (some of) it in the ground". This would also mean cutting way back on military defense (because militaries use immense materials and energy resources). Eventually the countries that do not "leave it in the ground" will be emboldened to come and take the stuff that the degrowth countries are leaving in the ground. It's the multipolar trap (first mover disadvantage). Personally I don't see Russia, China, etc. leaving anything in the ground; I don't even see the U.S. doing that. Therefore, we will continue to pillage the planet until the pollution, ecosystem destruction, wildlife loss, species loss, topsoil loss, lack of fresh water, and weather extremes cause collapse and/or WW III.
Therefore, I think it is well worth putting what needs to happen out there, at least it is for me and my peace of mind. I'm way past having any f*ks left for the half measures, "let's keep destroying the planet because some people can't give up their phones yet" compromises.
Nature is primary. I will speak for those who cannot, and fight for the living planet because very few others do.
Thx again for the explanations which help me understand better where you're at and what you're doing. Speaking of Russia, China, etc., you might find my recent post interesting "Multipolar Ltd. and The Eco-Environ Enclosed Loop"
Whether humans change behaviors & lifestyles and WHEN they do so are two different issues. After reading your comments here, it seems that you and Elisabeth agree that we must make major changes and lower our population, but you recognize that this isn't going to happen overnight. I agree, but Elisabeth is nevertheless correct in her criticisms, because these authors apparently still advocate for our ecocidal lifestyles, even while explaining that those lifestyles are ecocidal. That's the problem here, not that Elisabeth is complaining that everyone isn't returning to hunting & gathering immediately, because I can't imagine that she is.
Elisabeth, seems like b/c of the lack of suggested solutions you think the books advocate for ecocidal, lifestyles. If so, it's a worthwhile point yet maybe the authors could best answer. Also, for my read of Kara's, it was plenty simply to first learn of the atrocities and then be able to make my choices as to what to do, so in that sense i didn't think he was directly advocating as such. And you, as anyone, express your views and people do what they do, or don't.
Each of the books expressly states that we "need" the things the authors are writing about--plastic, mining (cobalt, but other metals too), and roads/cars--even as they describe how utterly horrific these things are and how they are destroying the living planet. Given that humans have existed on Earth for 300,000 years and the vast majority of those years without any of these things, their claims are demonstrably not true.
Each author is taking for granted that this way of life can and must continue. This is the unstated premise of each of these books.
I completely agree that it's worthwhile documenting the atrocities of plastic, cars & roads, and cobalt (and other) mining. Absolutely worthwhile.
What astonishes me is that these authors can write entire books about these horrors and STILL have their unstated premises intact. They can't imagine life without these things even though for the vast majority of human existence on Earth, they didn't exist.
(I am repeating my article here.)
So yes, they are advocating that these horrors continue by stating that we "need" these things, and rather than eliminating them, we should "mitigate" them. Mitigate is an easy word to throw around but in the end, the living planet is still being destroyed.
I have clearly laid out in my post on Protect Thacker Pass a path to eliminate the things that destroy the planet, over time, so that humans can adjust (the nuance you are looking for). Part of that is "lowering our population" -- I'm not sure why that is a problem, given that is obvious -- and my post on Protect Thacker Pass clearly lays out how this can be done humanely.
Any book/person who advocates that we "need" these things is advocating for an ecocidal lifestyle. I'm not sure how you can interpret it any other way.
Exposing the atrocities, the horrors of plastic, mining, and cars & roads is incredibly important. I don't expect these authors to have ready-made solutions. The plastics guy at least recognizes that we need to use/create less plastic, so that's a start. The solutions to these problems are obviously incredibly difficult and will be painful for humanity but again, with a solid plan in place, could be done. None of them consider elimination as a possibility.
I urge people to read all three books as I think they are important books. But I also urge people to keep in mind that the endgame of continuing this ecocidal way of life that includes plastics, mining, and cars & roads, is collapse.
My preference is that the world put aside our differences and put a plan in place to dramatically downsize and eliminate the things that are killing the planet, and do it in a way that allows time for humans to adjust. I don't see what is wrong with this, other than the fact that it is utterly unrealistic to expect or hope that this would ever happen.
As with all this stuff i think it's a matter of how it works in real time. The topic of "eliminate" is too vast for me to say what fits or doesn't with nuances. Some of what i meant by nuance has to do with transitional phases. Ambulances can help save lives so there's a reason for vehicles, yet then of course it can go back to how long there haven't been ambulances.
I don't agree with the vague statement of "lower our population". Am all for doing encouraging less breeding. As for "correct in her criticisms", I questioned the way she presented it as i think the Kara book is highly informative and i don't think it's premise is ecocidal, rather as mentioned not much solutions, plus the way it was presented as "zero" tolerance. Yes, change needs to happen but i think nuances can help the cause.
You either agree that humans need to greatly lower our population or you don't. There's nothing vague about my statement nor about my position. Human population had reached its ecological equilibrium after 190,000 years at 5-10 million globally when humans began committing agricultural destruction (i.e., destruction via agriculture) 10-12,000 years ago. Any argument that humans don't need to greatly lower our population is just human supremacism (anthropocentrism), and I firmly reject it.
HOW and how fast we reduce our population is another issue. I advocate for both coercive and noncoercive methods, because humans have shown that noncoercive methods alone will not produce sufficient results. We need to educate and empower all women and girls, and also have a global one-child-family policy. Even with that, it will take a long time (in human terms) to get human population to anywhere near an ecologically-balanced level.
My concern and priority here is not for humans. It's for the Earth and all naturally-occurring native life here, from rocks to plants to animals to air to mushrooms to plants to water to sky etc. If you prioritize humans, you are a human supremacist, and we're on opposite sides here. If humans want to destroy themselves by living unnaturally, over-consuming, and overpopulating, while I oppose that, it's their business and they get what they deserve for being unevolved fools. The problem is that they're killing nonhuman life and the Earth itself by what they're doing.
Humans are a part of the whole picture, am decidedly not a human supremacist. Like i said, am all for finding ways to curb the wave of over-population, but as to who decides other ways whether to lower populations is dicey playing God. And this is not a discussion i want to keep back and forthing more about, so i wish you well.
"it presented" meaning her article. i found that off-putting and she agreed that some may take it that way. i came away from the back and forth thinking that she and i have many similar views yet sometimes different approaches.
Humans are causing the Sixth Great Extinction and otherwise ruining the Earth and just about all native naturally-occurring life, and you focus on language that you think is off-putting? I think you need to reconsider your priorities. Humans are the Nazis of the species, killing everything that's not like them or that they don't like. While diplomacy has its uses, humans certainly don't deserve any here.
Hey, wait a minute! I was the one who first said that humans are the Nazis of the species. Murphy plagiarized me. :)
Seriously, now that we know that the 3 of us are part of the small fraction of 1% of humans who want to lower human population and return to living naturally in order to properly fit into the ecological process and not harm other life, what do we do? I think that we should have some beer and talk about it, or wine if you prefer. Of course those are products of civilization, which we've identified as the problem, so ...
I've identified the root of these problems as not being physical, but instead as being humans' failure to evolve mentally and spiritually. Our only legitimate role on this planet is to expand our consciousness. If humans had focused on that instead of obsessing on ego, intellect, and unnaturally and very harmfully manipulating the physical/natural world to suit themselves, we'd be a shining light on this planet. Instead, we're a cancerous tumor on it by medical definition. Intensely sad and infuriating at the same time that we've killed & destroyed so much that will never come back, but we can't do anything about those losses now. See this book outline for more details about this: https://rewilding.org/fixing-humans-by-expanding-our-consciousness/
Humans are a part of the whole picture, am decidedly not a human supremacist. Like i said, am all for finding ways to curb the wave of over-population, but as to who decides other ways whether to lower populations is dicey playing God. And this is not a discussion i want to keep back and forthing more about, so i wish you well.
"Like i said, am all for finding ways to curb the wave of over-population, but as to who decides other ways whether to lower populations is dicey playing God."
Your statement is self-contradictory, human supremacist, and factually wrong. Humans HAVE been playing god ever since they started using agriculture. You are projecting, a psychological term meaning that you're projecting your personality or traits onto others. Trying to restore the natural ecological balance, in this case proper human population levels, is not playing god. It's doing good for the Earth and all the life here.
Wishy washy statements like you're all for "finding ways to curb the wave of over-population" are meaningless and also clearly false, since your next sentence obsesses about "who decides" how to do this, which means you don't want to actually do anything. We don't need anyone to decide, we can already see what's worked and what hasn't. Read Countdown by Alan Weisman for details.
You're trying to tell me what to do based on your paradigm. You over-generalize as if it's all humans, that;'s absurd. And Stop with the attitude of trying to tell me what to focus on. I do not wish to converse with you.
I'd much rather that humans evolve mentally and spiritually than tell anyone what to do, including you. But when people act irresponsibly, such as by having more than 2 kids or overconsuming, they certainly NEED to be told what to do. You talk like a spoiled child who thinks they can do whatever they want. The laws of ecology and nature MUST be followed; if they're not, we end up like this: a dying planet with all life except for the cancerous tumor of humans being extinguished, though humans will certainly follow at some point because of this.
I did not OVER generalize, I just generalized because everything I wrote is generally true. It doesn't seem to matter that a minuscule fraction of us oppose what humans have been doing the past 10-12,000 years, the vast majority are fine with it as you seem to be, despite your self-contradictory comments to the contrary. Do you really think that a tree or a wolf being killed by humans cares at all what the percentage of humans is who oppose these types of actions think about them or that some small minority of us oppose them enough in a meaningful way?
PS - am a writer and small press publisher, so i love books yet ironically my recent book shows the dark side of books, for one, people have lost touch with direct experiences and instead go by the book e.g. how the Bible has been used as a tool against the Native Peoples of Turtle Island and the Natural World worldwide. Genesis gives permission for human supremacy:"... and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Also, considering the Tree-Beings, less books would seem to help, too.
Totally agree with this review with one exception: I really wish people would stop saying that "[r]ecycling, we now know, is a farce" and other similar nonsense. What you mean is that PLASTIC recycling is a farce, and always has been. Some of us have known that for 40 years, so nothing new about it. But recycling paper, glass, and metal is quite real. While it doesn't solve the problem of humans constantly committing ecocide by consuming needless containers and trees, it does substantially reduce the amount of life that humans kill and the amount of ecosystems and habitats destroyed. Again, I totally agree that humans must greatly lower their population and consumption and return to living naturally, but in our current society, recycling is far better than not recycling.
Glass recycling is real, but energy intensive and complex (although not compared to recycling metal!) and so doesn't actually get done much. Where I live, it's too expensive, so the glass gets shipped off for downcycling into aggregates.
Here's a description of how glass is recycled: https://phys.org/news/2024-08-major-energy-companies-conceal-biodiversity.html
Metal recycling depends heavily on the metal and what it is in (i.e. what are other components, the size, whether the technology is there, etc.). So for aluminum recycling for instance, an aluminum can is easy because it's not mixed with anything except a bit of plastic, but still energy intensive (it's shredded and then melted in a furnace at high heat).
Copper is similar, for copper that is like copper wire, and not copper say, in a battery.
But when you look at how metals in a battery are recycled (like a Li-ion battery) then things get a LOT more difficult and toxic and energy intensive. So, for Li-ion batteries, the batteries are shredded in water (to alleviate the tendency for them to explode) -- thus toxifying the water! -- and the plastic is floated off. The rest goes through several processes, heating, and bathing in various toxic chemicals, depending on which metals are the priority to extract (you can't really get them all but you can prioritize which ones you want and use a different process depending on that). After all that you're left with toxic sludge that has to be dumped somewhere.
Some metals like copper and steel and aluminum have a high recovery rate (80-95%). Most metals have a MUCH lower recovery rate. At a recovery rate of 90% you're down to less than 10% of the original material after 22 cycles. For most you lost most of the material after just 1 or 2 cycles.
So yeah. Recycling plastic is a farce, but recycling is always energy intensive and usually toxic.
Great piece, Beth.
Wow, this is a great piece and devastating to know the authors conclusions. It’s as if the imagination was replaced with delusional magical thinking. Like they’re willing to do the research and expose the darkness, but then really really want to be popular by reinforcing mediocre responses.
another thing i noticed about Kara's book is that it got a lot of mainstream press exposure, but then i don't think i saw a single followup to learn if anything has changed, either in the Congo or with people's usage of cell-phones.
Same with the plastics book. No follow up.
We know what we are doing, but we continue to do it anyway because no one knows how to do it differently. And even if we do know how to do it differently, we know if *we* do, others won't, so what's the point? (Some of us do what we can anyway, so we can live with ourselves, but most don't.)
At the country level, the first mover disadvantage will keep us in the arms race of extraction and pollution, unless the entire world can come together on these issues and collectively agree to change. I, personally and sadly, don't see that happening.
Thanks for the response and about the plastics book. I loosely address some of what you mention in my recent essay...how economy, extraction, war, environment are connected, so i hope you can give it a read. The "eco-environ enclosed loop", a phrase i came up with from the etymology of the words, is akin to the box to which people say, think outside the box.
and yeah, sad the lack of change, which makes the books seem like fastfood. For me the "do it differently" is encouraged by remembering that sometimes one person starting/doing something can have a ripple effect, albeit indirectly. When i used to bring my reusable bag to a big chain supermarket, one day the lady at checkout said something like, 'It's mister Greenpeace'...years later such bags are way more prevalent. Perhaps it was just a matter of time rather than a cause-effect, but point is, when one does what one does, it can help.
Elisabeth, Am well aware that the way humanity is mistreating Mother Earth is the biggest issue and that drastic changes are needed. The only book i can speak directly to is Cobalt Red and although i agree it's lacking in solutions, i don't think Kara deserves extreme finger-pointing as i found the book highly worthy and informative about a topic that many are oblivious too so kudos to Kara for bravely doing the research, something you do acknowledge, and so i consider the book at the least as a much-needed conversation starter. No roads, no cell-phones, no plastics, i mean can you imagine the worldwide chaos? Of course am aware of the horrors associated with all of those products and that during Covid rivers and skies cleared up, yet what "real change" do you propose b/c without roads and plastics, there are ~8 billion people to answer to, and yes am aware that humans are only one species. You state "Anything else is unacceptable." What then do you propose? And why is there no room for nuance? And yes the destruction happening is a call for drastic changes yet i still think there is room for nuance and some sort of transitional phases from the consumer-laden lifestyles. I personally put much attention to being content with the simplest of lifestyles yet in suburbia, for one, my current diet depends on foods delivered by roads.
Mankh, thank you for your comment. Yes I agree, I'm glad that Kara did the research; it's important that people know the truth. As I say about all the books, they are all important and good reads despite their common flaw.
Max and I wrote a Solutions piece for Protect Thacker Pass with proposals for what to do, so I'll point you there instead of repeating here: https://www.protectthackerpass.org/solutions/
"No roads, no cell-phones, no plastics, i mean can you imagine the worldwide chaos?"
Yes, I can. But with roads (and cars), with cell-phones, and with plastics (and all the other things that make the modern world run), human society will soon collapse and take many of the other species on Earth with us as we are already doing.
To take just one of the ways we're destroying Earth (from one of these books): we have poisoned the entire planet with micro- and nano-plastics, now found everywhere we look, including brains, placentas, fetuses, the Arctic, the Antarctic, mountaintops, the deepest parts of the ocean, etc. We are literally poisoning ourselves and every living being and ecosystem on the planet.
So yeah, there will be worldwide chaos. But what is the alternative? To continue poisoning the planet until EVERYTHING dies?? Chaos for ONE species out of 10 million is a small price to pay to stop this insanity.
As Max and I lay out in our Solutions, yes of course there will need to be an adjustment period. But if we don't face the reality -- that we need to eliminate these things that are killing life on Earth -- then when collapse of human society and population does come -- and it will come, because we are already in catastrophic ecological overshoot, and all species in overshoot eventually collapse -- there will be very little life left, and no unpolluted ecosystems to sustain what little is left.
I, personally, would happily take the chaos in order to lessen that blow, even just a little.
-- Elisabeth, Thanks for response and link which i may have looked at previously but just glanced again. I communicate with Max and respect his work very much. I meant more so your solutions for ~8 billion people living with virtually nothing, which is what it seems you propose. While i idealistically agree with much of the ways to improve, i find the books article with the gist of what you present, i find it too either/or, too off-putting and extreme; it's presented, as i mentioned, with no nuance and as if you expect people to immediately forage totally off the grid when people can barely go 5 minutes without a cellphone, am not defending that behavior just saying that would be part of the chaos, as proven by the amount of mental-emotional issues and traumas from lockdown time when many people actually had access to the things you want to eliminate. I also think the either/or doesn't account for weather patterns which are controlled in part by spiritual dimensions, but that's another discussion. I just mean that the starkness you present gives no nuance, for example, while some of the solutions are admirable, there would be tools and plastics and vehicles needed to clean up military bases.
That's why Max and I suggest a gradual rationing plan and population plan, so allow time for people to adjust and population to decrease.
Obviously none of what we propose will happen. But there are so few people even willing to contemplate degrowth, much less a radical plan to live in balance with nature again. I think it's worth putting more radical ideas out there.
After collapse happens -- either because we put a radical plan into place, or because we don't -- we will be in MUCH worse shape than if we'd actually contemplated what it will take to live with dramatically reduced materials and energy, and in a catastrophically polluted environment, with hardly any wildlife left. I'm simply proposing that we consider now (rather than waiting until collapse is upon us) what will eventually be our reality (because the carrying capacity of Earth has been so reduced by overshoot).
Thanks for the extra explanations!
seems to me that and you and i agree on a lot of essences, yet it's the process about how change happens that makes for a trickier conversation and i don't profess to have big answers. I have my answers and offer many suggestions via my writings, etc. yet i find the overall topic so huge that it's tricky to be precise with answers.
Elisabeth, i read thru most of the link and in essence i agree and do feel local is a wave of the now and future, and the goals are admirable, it's that i wonder about how all this currently plays out in real time and i don't expect you to have all the answers. What am trying to get at it is that i think there's some sort of weaning/relearning process and that's some of what i mean by the either/or sounding off-putting. I also think en masse b/c humans haven't listened to the warnings for decades, we're in a phase where the true teachers are Nature e.g. storms that leave people with virtually or no possessions and Spirit-beings that do what they do to guide people. So that's where much of my attention and action is at, staying in tune with the Nature rhythms and messages, and those of the Spirit-beings.
Yes I agree it's off-putting to some (not all). I think it takes ALL of us doing what we think is right to fight for nature. Some will resonate with the unvarnished truth. Others will need to be gently led. I'm not a gently lead kind of person; many many others are. I prefer to look at reality, now, in its entirety. Others have different styles. And again, we need it all.
And honestly, none of it really matters much. We are well into the sixth mass extinction, and the web of life is fraying while I write this.
We're all in this together. Even if one or a few countries decided to seriously take on degrowth, even gently, other countries would not. The countries that do would "leave (some of) it in the ground". This would also mean cutting way back on military defense (because militaries use immense materials and energy resources). Eventually the countries that do not "leave it in the ground" will be emboldened to come and take the stuff that the degrowth countries are leaving in the ground. It's the multipolar trap (first mover disadvantage). Personally I don't see Russia, China, etc. leaving anything in the ground; I don't even see the U.S. doing that. Therefore, we will continue to pillage the planet until the pollution, ecosystem destruction, wildlife loss, species loss, topsoil loss, lack of fresh water, and weather extremes cause collapse and/or WW III.
Therefore, I think it is well worth putting what needs to happen out there, at least it is for me and my peace of mind. I'm way past having any f*ks left for the half measures, "let's keep destroying the planet because some people can't give up their phones yet" compromises.
Nature is primary. I will speak for those who cannot, and fight for the living planet because very few others do.
"I will speak for those who cannot, and fight for the living planet because very few others do."
Agree. And though at first i found this a very challenging back-and-forth, it turned out alright :)
"I will speak for those who cannot, and fight for the living planet because very few others do."
Good for you, and agree. And though at first i found this a very challenging back-and-forth, it turned out alright :)
Thx again for the explanations which help me understand better where you're at and what you're doing. Speaking of Russia, China, etc., you might find my recent post interesting "Multipolar Ltd. and The Eco-Environ Enclosed Loop"
https://musingsbetweenlines.substack.com/p/multipolar-ltd-and-the-eco-enviro
Whether humans change behaviors & lifestyles and WHEN they do so are two different issues. After reading your comments here, it seems that you and Elisabeth agree that we must make major changes and lower our population, but you recognize that this isn't going to happen overnight. I agree, but Elisabeth is nevertheless correct in her criticisms, because these authors apparently still advocate for our ecocidal lifestyles, even while explaining that those lifestyles are ecocidal. That's the problem here, not that Elisabeth is complaining that everyone isn't returning to hunting & gathering immediately, because I can't imagine that she is.
"these authors apparently still advocate for our ecocidal lifestyles, even while explaining that those lifestyles are ecocidal."
That is the crux of my criticism right there.
Elisabeth, seems like b/c of the lack of suggested solutions you think the books advocate for ecocidal, lifestyles. If so, it's a worthwhile point yet maybe the authors could best answer. Also, for my read of Kara's, it was plenty simply to first learn of the atrocities and then be able to make my choices as to what to do, so in that sense i didn't think he was directly advocating as such. And you, as anyone, express your views and people do what they do, or don't.
Each of the books expressly states that we "need" the things the authors are writing about--plastic, mining (cobalt, but other metals too), and roads/cars--even as they describe how utterly horrific these things are and how they are destroying the living planet. Given that humans have existed on Earth for 300,000 years and the vast majority of those years without any of these things, their claims are demonstrably not true.
Each author is taking for granted that this way of life can and must continue. This is the unstated premise of each of these books.
I completely agree that it's worthwhile documenting the atrocities of plastic, cars & roads, and cobalt (and other) mining. Absolutely worthwhile.
What astonishes me is that these authors can write entire books about these horrors and STILL have their unstated premises intact. They can't imagine life without these things even though for the vast majority of human existence on Earth, they didn't exist.
(I am repeating my article here.)
So yes, they are advocating that these horrors continue by stating that we "need" these things, and rather than eliminating them, we should "mitigate" them. Mitigate is an easy word to throw around but in the end, the living planet is still being destroyed.
I have clearly laid out in my post on Protect Thacker Pass a path to eliminate the things that destroy the planet, over time, so that humans can adjust (the nuance you are looking for). Part of that is "lowering our population" -- I'm not sure why that is a problem, given that is obvious -- and my post on Protect Thacker Pass clearly lays out how this can be done humanely.
Any book/person who advocates that we "need" these things is advocating for an ecocidal lifestyle. I'm not sure how you can interpret it any other way.
Exposing the atrocities, the horrors of plastic, mining, and cars & roads is incredibly important. I don't expect these authors to have ready-made solutions. The plastics guy at least recognizes that we need to use/create less plastic, so that's a start. The solutions to these problems are obviously incredibly difficult and will be painful for humanity but again, with a solid plan in place, could be done. None of them consider elimination as a possibility.
I urge people to read all three books as I think they are important books. But I also urge people to keep in mind that the endgame of continuing this ecocidal way of life that includes plastics, mining, and cars & roads, is collapse.
My preference is that the world put aside our differences and put a plan in place to dramatically downsize and eliminate the things that are killing the planet, and do it in a way that allows time for humans to adjust. I don't see what is wrong with this, other than the fact that it is utterly unrealistic to expect or hope that this would ever happen.
As with all this stuff i think it's a matter of how it works in real time. The topic of "eliminate" is too vast for me to say what fits or doesn't with nuances. Some of what i meant by nuance has to do with transitional phases. Ambulances can help save lives so there's a reason for vehicles, yet then of course it can go back to how long there haven't been ambulances.
I don't agree with the vague statement of "lower our population". Am all for doing encouraging less breeding. As for "correct in her criticisms", I questioned the way she presented it as i think the Kara book is highly informative and i don't think it's premise is ecocidal, rather as mentioned not much solutions, plus the way it was presented as "zero" tolerance. Yes, change needs to happen but i think nuances can help the cause.
You either agree that humans need to greatly lower our population or you don't. There's nothing vague about my statement nor about my position. Human population had reached its ecological equilibrium after 190,000 years at 5-10 million globally when humans began committing agricultural destruction (i.e., destruction via agriculture) 10-12,000 years ago. Any argument that humans don't need to greatly lower our population is just human supremacism (anthropocentrism), and I firmly reject it.
HOW and how fast we reduce our population is another issue. I advocate for both coercive and noncoercive methods, because humans have shown that noncoercive methods alone will not produce sufficient results. We need to educate and empower all women and girls, and also have a global one-child-family policy. Even with that, it will take a long time (in human terms) to get human population to anywhere near an ecologically-balanced level.
My concern and priority here is not for humans. It's for the Earth and all naturally-occurring native life here, from rocks to plants to animals to air to mushrooms to plants to water to sky etc. If you prioritize humans, you are a human supremacist, and we're on opposite sides here. If humans want to destroy themselves by living unnaturally, over-consuming, and overpopulating, while I oppose that, it's their business and they get what they deserve for being unevolved fools. The problem is that they're killing nonhuman life and the Earth itself by what they're doing.
Humans are a part of the whole picture, am decidedly not a human supremacist. Like i said, am all for finding ways to curb the wave of over-population, but as to who decides other ways whether to lower populations is dicey playing God. And this is not a discussion i want to keep back and forthing more about, so i wish you well.
That response was to Jeff.
"it presented" meaning her article. i found that off-putting and she agreed that some may take it that way. i came away from the back and forth thinking that she and i have many similar views yet sometimes different approaches.
Humans are causing the Sixth Great Extinction and otherwise ruining the Earth and just about all native naturally-occurring life, and you focus on language that you think is off-putting? I think you need to reconsider your priorities. Humans are the Nazis of the species, killing everything that's not like them or that they don't like. While diplomacy has its uses, humans certainly don't deserve any here.
I think it's worth reading Tom Murphy's recent post on The Human Reich: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/08/mm-12-human-supremacy/ - he covers this issue very well.
Hey, wait a minute! I was the one who first said that humans are the Nazis of the species. Murphy plagiarized me. :)
Seriously, now that we know that the 3 of us are part of the small fraction of 1% of humans who want to lower human population and return to living naturally in order to properly fit into the ecological process and not harm other life, what do we do? I think that we should have some beer and talk about it, or wine if you prefer. Of course those are products of civilization, which we've identified as the problem, so ...
I've identified the root of these problems as not being physical, but instead as being humans' failure to evolve mentally and spiritually. Our only legitimate role on this planet is to expand our consciousness. If humans had focused on that instead of obsessing on ego, intellect, and unnaturally and very harmfully manipulating the physical/natural world to suit themselves, we'd be a shining light on this planet. Instead, we're a cancerous tumor on it by medical definition. Intensely sad and infuriating at the same time that we've killed & destroyed so much that will never come back, but we can't do anything about those losses now. See this book outline for more details about this: https://rewilding.org/fixing-humans-by-expanding-our-consciousness/
Humans are a part of the whole picture, am decidedly not a human supremacist. Like i said, am all for finding ways to curb the wave of over-population, but as to who decides other ways whether to lower populations is dicey playing God. And this is not a discussion i want to keep back and forthing more about, so i wish you well.
"Like i said, am all for finding ways to curb the wave of over-population, but as to who decides other ways whether to lower populations is dicey playing God."
Your statement is self-contradictory, human supremacist, and factually wrong. Humans HAVE been playing god ever since they started using agriculture. You are projecting, a psychological term meaning that you're projecting your personality or traits onto others. Trying to restore the natural ecological balance, in this case proper human population levels, is not playing god. It's doing good for the Earth and all the life here.
Wishy washy statements like you're all for "finding ways to curb the wave of over-population" are meaningless and also clearly false, since your next sentence obsesses about "who decides" how to do this, which means you don't want to actually do anything. We don't need anyone to decide, we can already see what's worked and what hasn't. Read Countdown by Alan Weisman for details.
You're trying to tell me what to do based on your paradigm. You over-generalize as if it's all humans, that;'s absurd. And Stop with the attitude of trying to tell me what to focus on. I do not wish to converse with you.
I'd much rather that humans evolve mentally and spiritually than tell anyone what to do, including you. But when people act irresponsibly, such as by having more than 2 kids or overconsuming, they certainly NEED to be told what to do. You talk like a spoiled child who thinks they can do whatever they want. The laws of ecology and nature MUST be followed; if they're not, we end up like this: a dying planet with all life except for the cancerous tumor of humans being extinguished, though humans will certainly follow at some point because of this.
I did not OVER generalize, I just generalized because everything I wrote is generally true. It doesn't seem to matter that a minuscule fraction of us oppose what humans have been doing the past 10-12,000 years, the vast majority are fine with it as you seem to be, despite your self-contradictory comments to the contrary. Do you really think that a tree or a wolf being killed by humans cares at all what the percentage of humans is who oppose these types of actions think about them or that some small minority of us oppose them enough in a meaningful way?
Those comments are to Jeff
PS - am a writer and small press publisher, so i love books yet ironically my recent book shows the dark side of books, for one, people have lost touch with direct experiences and instead go by the book e.g. how the Bible has been used as a tool against the Native Peoples of Turtle Island and the Natural World worldwide. Genesis gives permission for human supremacy:"... and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Also, considering the Tree-Beings, less books would seem to help, too.